Standing Committee D

[Mr. Eric Illsleyin the Chair]

Eric Illsley: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a ways and means resolution connected with the Bill. Copies of both resolutions are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.
The usual rules and conventions of Committees will apply. While I am in the Chair, hon. Members may remove their jackets as and when they wish. My co-Chairman will make an announcement on this when he takes the Chair.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move,
That—
(1) during proceedings on the Company Law Reform Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.00 a.m. on Thursday 15th June) meet—
(a) at 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 15th June;
(b) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 20th June;
(c) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 22nd June;
(d) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 27th June;
(e) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 29th June;
(f) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 4th July;
(g) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 6th July;
(h) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 11th July;
(i) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 13th July;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 137; Clauses 253 to 361; Clauses 604 to 641; Clauses 676 to 680; Clauses 694 to 777; Schedule 4; Clauses 778 to 795; Schedules 5 to 7; Clauses 796 to 806; Schedule 8; Clauses 807 to 812; Clauses 821 to 846; Schedule 10; Clauses 847 to 849; Schedule 11; Clauses 850 to 871; Schedule 12; Clauses 872 to 881; Schedule 13; Clauses 882 to 893; Schedule 14; Clauses 894 to 901; Schedule 15; Clauses 902 to 919; Clauses 921 to 925; Clauses 139 to 238; Schedule 1; Clauses 239 to 252; Clauses 362 to 529; Clauses 642 to 648; Schedule 2; Clauses 649 to 675; Schedule 3; Clauses 530 to 603; Clauses 681 to 693; Clause 138; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 813 and 814; Schedule 9; Clauses 815 to 820; Clause 920; Schedule 16; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 13th July.
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. Having just looked you up, I find that you are now in your 20th year as a Member of Parliament. I am grateful to you for taking on this onerous task. I am told this is the longest Bill that has ever appeared before the House. We are hoping that your interest in football will inform our sittings—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—and that we shall finish in time to watch the Sweden match. [Hon. Members: “It is next week.”] I am ahead of my time.
Mr. Illsley, you once called on the royal family to attend more football matches. I do not know what success you had with that. You are one of the few MPs who opposed televising the Commons, but I am sure that you do not oppose the facility of television in the Commons for those who want to watch things going on outside.
We had a good debate on Second Reading. The Bill is enormous and will grow during the course of our considerations as we try to consolidate more into it to put all the legislation has an impact on companies in one place. It will make an enormous difference to UK business and I hope that it ensures that people who wish to incorporate companies see the UK as the best place in which to do business. If we are to succeed in that, it is vital that we get the provisions right.
Hon. Members who have read proceedings in the upper House will see that the Government are very open-minded in our approach to the Bill. The provisions are in good shape, but we are always anxious to improve them. Certainly, during the discussions that I had in the past month with my officials, we found that there is always room for improvement in a Bill of such an enormous size. If we are persuaded that amendments will improve it, we will be happy to support them.
We tried to approach the development of the Bill in a truly collaborative and inclusive way, which is why it has attracted such broad consensus and support in the business community. Indeed, I am meeting various hon. Members to determine whether we can reach a consensus on one of the issues of contention, which is the clause on indirect shareholder interest. Those who read the debate in the other place will know that the Bill attracted a good deal of cross-party support. I hope that in this Committee all Opposition Members act in that collaborative and constructive way.
I hope that hon. Members will bear with us on the substance of the programme motion. We are proposing not to deal with the provisions in the precise order that they are laid out in the Bill. There are several reasons why that approach is sensible. I will be kindly supported by two ministerial colleagues who have better legal qualifications than I do. One of them is the Solicitor-General, who is unable to be with us today because of his involvement with the Fraud Bill. We want to defer parts 10, 11, 15, 16 and 24. He will lead on those in the most part lead, although I shall work through some of the clauses with him. As the Attorney-General took those through the House of Lords, it seemed sensible for the Solicitor-General to lead on them in the Commons Committee.
Parts 17 to 21, 26 to 33, and schedules 9 and 16 have been moved because they are where we want to introduce new consolidating clauses from previous legislation. Those will restate many of the provisions of the Companies Act 1985. As we speak, parliamentary counsel are drafting those parts. We want to defer them and discuss them later in our proceedings.
Finally, I alluded to consideration of part 9, which is the clause on indirect shareholders. We want to leave it to the end because I am trying to build consensus with all parties concerned on the proper way forward. After the first consultation meeting yesterday, I am optimistic that we will bring the parties together. That would be a much more satisfactory way of resolving the problem.

Crispin Blunt: I join the Minister in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. She was correct when she said that we might finish in time for the Sweden match, as it kicks off at 7 o’clock. I suspect that if we are still here shortly before 5 o’clock, even I would command a majority if I were to move that the Committee be adjourned.
This is one of those occasions when our primary duty as legislators is to work together to produce the best framework for our companies. There is broad agreement that company law needs to be recast. There is no disagreement on that in principle—indeed, there is significant agreement. The subject may be politically dull, but it is important. We are all charged with a precious responsibility to get the legislation right, because the prospects and living standards of all our citizens will be hampered if we do not get right the legal environment that affects our wealth creation. The Bill is immensely important.
The Bill had a lengthy gestation period. There has obviously been substantial consultation since the Department first started serious preparation of it as far back as 1998. However, it is only in Parliament that the arguments of the people who are being consulted about the Bill, the people whose interests are affected by it and the experts who have made contributions to all sides of the debate will be exposed to public discussion. It is only by examining the detail of the legislation that, in Committee here and in another place, we can expose the arguments put to the Department of Trade and Industry over a long period to determine how strong they are, particularly when the Government have rejected submissions that have been made to them. The Government are asking for trouble by introducing legislation that will become the largest Act to reach the statute book, as everyone anticipates it will, and by getting into detailed Committee consideration more than one year into the parliamentary Session—it is a year since this Parliament was formed—when there has been such substantial preparation time. It will be difficult for us to do the job that, as legislators, we are sent here primarily to do.
This is a 925-clause Bill. Some 181 amendments and 22 new clauses are tabled for consideration. I suspect that 22 new clauses will be multiplied by a factor of at least 22 to give us perhaps 400 new clauses to deal with the consolidation. At this stage, we do not know for sure, however, because the Government will table the consolidation measures in due course. They cannot produce them yet because they are drafting them and consulting on them. However, this programme motion provides for a finish date in Committee of 13 July. That is the principal problem.
With this Bill, programming as a way of doing our business as legislators reaches its nadir. With a Bill of this length, the 13 July finish date will not enable us to do our job properly, and we will have to examine the legislation with that handicap. We must make it clear to the people whose interests are affected by all 925 clauses that Her Majesty’s Opposition will not be able to examine significant aspects of the Bill in the detail that we would wish. We are being forced into a position whereby we will have to focus our attention on those aspects of the Bill which have attracted the most public controversy. Important elements deserving of proper consideration will not receive it because of the time constraints on us.
We will have to focus our efforts on specific aspects to meet our priorities for examination. We have had to produce a batting order for the things that we wish to examine. Sadly, we will reach perhaps only the top 11 in that batting order. At the moment it runs to 925, but no doubt it will be rather longer when we reach the end of our proceedings.
Although on Second Reading we can no longer debate programming because of a change in Standing Orders, the Secretary of State said:
“As I understand it—I may be wrong—the timetable was agreed through the usual channels, though they are not always foolproof.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 123.]
The usual channels never agree to timetables on any legislation. Her Majesty’s Opposition have a principled opposition to programming, and that goes for all legislation. The Government must expect Divisions on programme motions at any stage. We are in principle opposed to them imposing programme motions because they deny legislation the chance for proper consideration.
We agree that the Government are entitled to get their legislation. If it becomes clear in the course of proceedings on any legislation that obstruction or filibustering is likely to prevent that from happening, we accept, as we did when we were in government, that timetables might need to be applied. The fact that the Bill has been introduced in June and is likely to be the largest Bill ever makes our position extremely difficult. We shall oppose the programme motion. I refute the suggestion that it was in any sense agreed; it was not. It might be suggested that we sit for all hours of the night between now and 13 July to consider the Bill. The Government might decide that that is an appropriate way to proceed. I do not think that it is.
The Bill is technical and requires a lot of work and preparation. The Government are still doing a great deal of that and their civil servants are working away trying to meet their deadline of 13 July. We should have a proper chance to scrutinise the Bill in sensible time. That has been denied us by the Government and that is why we oppose the motion.

Lorely Burt: On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, for this marathon. I am sure that under your wise guidance we will manage the whole event with dignity and good humour.
Our group will also play our part in ensuring that we co-operate as fully as possible, so that we meet the strict deadline imposed by the Government. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments: we will work hard to ensure that we do not take unnecessary time over things that are not controversial and have received a high degree of consensus in consultations elsewhere. However, we are disturbed at the order of proceedings. Although we take the Minister’s point about the Solicitor-General’s other responsibilities, it is unfortunate that legislation of this importance has to be ordered in a way that reflects his convenience, not the convenience of the Committee. It does not reflect well that no one on the Government side is available to give the level of expertise that taking the Bill through Committee in a coherent manner demands.
We are particularly concerned that clause 399, which relates to what was the operating and financial review and is now the business review, should receive proper time for debate. It would be appalling if we did not reach that point. We, too, will vote against the programme motion.

Jeff Ennis: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. As you know, we are a rare breed in Parliament in that we are both Barnsley supporters. There are few Barnsley supporters in this House apart from you, me and, of course, Lord Mason in the other place. We recently had the privilege of seeing Barnsley win against Swansea City in the league one play-offs for a place in the championship. Later today is the World cup match, and I am sure that we are all looking forward to England winning their second World cup—under a Labour Government, like last time. We are tough on sport, but not soft on crime.
Some of the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) do not really reflect the debate on Second Reading, as far as I can see from Hansard. The Bill is very complicated, important and long and it should be subject to detailed scrutiny. I draw his attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on Second Reading, who said:
“We broadly support the Bill. As it has nearly 1,000 clauses, it is pleasing that we have to disagree with only a handful of them. We are glad that the Government have moved towards our position on some of the issues that remain before us.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 136.]
As the hon. Member for Reigate rightly said, it is a long Bill—925 clauses—but as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, there is an all-party consensus on many clauses. The Minister referred to that, and she is willing to go as far as possible to accommodate Opposition Members.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. We are eight minutes from the conclusion of the debate and it appears that the Government are in some difficultly. Two issues arise from the programme motion, on which they may lose a vote unless something changes before 9.30. If paragraph (3) of the programme motion were withdrawn, it would be acceptable to us. However, I understand that we are constrained by a resolution of the House. I would be grateful for your advice as to whether there is any way we can escape our current dilemma.

Eric Illsley: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I am advised that we cannot amend the programme motion at this stage, so it will stand or fall as it is.

Jeff Ennis: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to comment on what I was saying.
Labour Members are looking for consensus, which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned on Second Reading. He went on to say:
“The reports, consultations and reviews on which the Bill is based argued for putting deregulation and a “think small first” approach at the heart of company law. The Bill that has come to us, much amended in another place, is broadly to be supported. In many areas it deregulates and simplifies existing law, for which companies will be grateful.”
Once again, as far as I am concerned, that underlines the consensus on Labour and Opposition Benches. It also underlines the fact that in the other place many points raised by the Opposition were taken on board by Ministers. We are very much looking for consensus.
The hon. Gentleman continued:
“Our shared objective with business is that it should achieve sustainable economic growth.”
Where have I heard that expression before? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably use that phrase in Treasury questions at 10.30, because Labour Members have used it for almost 10 years since we came to power. We are trying to put deregulation first and to accommodate small businesses. That is the tenor of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
“Against those measures, much of the Bill stands up very well. Existing company legislation needs revision so that it better reflects modern business practice and technological developments such as electronic communications.
That is absolutely right. We need to reflect the modern business environment and the modern business ethos. That is exactly what the Bill is trying to achieve by bringing company law into the 21st century.
The hon. Gentleman also said:
“Small business and private companies have in the past suffered from having to comply with requirements that were designed for larger public companies. The Bill goes some way towards rectifying that. We support, for example, the provision that one person alone can set up a company and that he will not have to appoint a company secretary, although they may choose to do so if they so wish. The requirement to hold an annual general meeting was a burdensome formality—it was a nuisance for some small firms. It is the recognition of these issues in the Bill that we thoroughly support.”
That is absolutely right.
The future of this country will be based on small and medium-sized enterprises, and the Government are doing everything in their power to try to encourage and foster the growth of SMEs.

Marsha Singh: And corner shops.

Jeff Ennis: Corner shops are still important to our economy. Indeed, we had an Adjournment debate in the House the other day on that subject.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
“I am sure that the Bill will receive detailed scrutiny in Committee, as far as we are able to engage in it.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 136.]
It is there in black and white.

Justine Greening: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman read so much from the debate on Second Reading and reassuring that literacy hour is having benefits that are perhaps broader than we expected.
Some small and medium-sized enterprises are close to my heart. The hon. Gentleman said that being a Barnsley supporter is tough; he should try coming from Rotherham, where many people were relieved to have a football club left at the end of the season, let alone a football club that had managed to avoid relegation. Does he agree that that is precisely the sort of organisation that we must be careful not to stifle with regulation? Many companies are doing their best to survive, let alone prosper and grow, and we must be careful that we do not add further regulations that are unintended.

Eric Illsley: Before the hon. Gentleman resumes, perhaps I could suggest that the Committee returns to the programme motion.

Jeff Ennis: Before doing that, I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is nice to have someone from South Yorkshire supporting another good football team, Rotherham United. It unfortunately has some financial problems at the moment, but we in South Yorkshire are all hoping that they will be overcome.
I am glad that the hon. Lady referred to the debate on Second Reading, because the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made an excellent contribution, as I hope all Opposition Members agree. I also hope that the contributions of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen will be as accommodating.

It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order 83C(9).

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Eric Illsley: The Committee will suspend for 30 minutes and reconvene at 10 o’clock. I ask the Programming Sub-Committee to remain in the Room and I will reconvene it. In the absence of a Government majority, it is unlikely that I will accept the same programme motion because having rejected it once the Committee is likely to reject it a second time. If there is no Government majority within that time, we must arrive at a way for progressing the Bill.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move,
That—
(1) during proceedings on the Company Law Reform Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.00 a.m. on Thursday 15th June) meet—
(a) at 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 15th June;
(b) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 20th June;
(c) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 22nd June;
(d) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 27th June;
(e) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 29th June;
(f) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 4th July;
(g) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 6th July;
(h) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 11th July;
(i) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 13th July;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 137; Clauses 253 to 361; Clauses 604 to 641; Clauses 676 to 680; Clauses 694 to 777; Schedule 4; Clauses 778 to 795; Schedules 5 to 7; Clauses 796 to 806; Schedule 8; Clauses 807 to 812; Clauses 821 to 846; Schedule 10; Clauses 847 to 849; Schedule 11; Clauses 850 to 871; Schedule 12; Clauses 872 to 881; Schedule 13; Clauses 882 to 893; Schedule 14; Clauses 894 to 901; Schedule 15; Clauses 902 to 919; Clauses 921 to 925; Clauses 139 to 238; Schedule 1; Clauses 239 to 252; Clauses 362 to 529; Clauses 642 to 648; Schedule 2; Clauses 649 to 675; Schedule 3; Clauses 530 to 603; Clauses 681 to 693; Clause 138; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 813 and 814; Schedule 9; Clauses 815 to 820; Clause 920; Schedule 16; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 p.m. on Thursday 13th July.
Following that helpful reconvening of the Programming Sub-Committee, the Government propose this motion, which contains a change to paragraph (3), whereby we now refer to proceedings being brought to a conclusion at 5 pm on Thursday 13 July.

Eric Illsley: The motion is debatable for a maximum of 30 minutes.

Crispin Blunt: Thank you, Mr, Illsley. Members of the public who are attending proceedings might be slightly confused by the process, but that is a consequence of programming. What has happened this morning reflects a mismanagement and mishandling of legislation in that the House of Commons is being presented in June with the biggest Bill that it is ever going to consider.
We are right up against a deadline because the parties represented here all want to get the legislation on the statute book before the end of the parliamentary Session. However, it is essential that we do so in good order, with the Bill having been properly considered not only by Members, but with the benefit of advice from all the experts in corporate law whose fortunes depend—as do those of all of us in the United Kingdom—on the legislation providing the right framework for company law and the creation of wealth in this country.
At the end of the process in another place, the Government accepted that the measure would be a consolidation measure, so that one would be able to use the Company Law Reform Act, which is what the Bill will be upon enactment, to find the source of company law. The Minister shakes her head.

Margaret Hodge: It is not that the entirety of the Bill is a consolidation matter. I assure Opposition Members that if we undertake further consolidation that leads to Government new clauses being tabled—the programme motion suggests that the parts of the Bill affected will be dealt with later in the Committee’s consideration—those further clauses will be entirely consolidation clauses and will make no change to existing statute or case law.

Crispin Blunt: As the Minister will understand, that is not quite as straightforward an exercise as it would appear, because the presentation of such legislation would obviously interact with other elements of the Bill.

Margaret Hodge: I entirely accept that that is not straightforward, which is why I have given assurances to the spokesmen for both Opposition parties that we will share with them the drafting of those consolidation clauses as soon as we can, and we intend to involve the Law Society in that. By the time the Committee is ready to consider those clauses, I hope that many of the experts and stakeholders will have had the chance to give them appropriate consideration.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for giving an undertaking, when her Department is ready, to share the drafting of the new legislation with the Law Society, other experts and the Opposition parties. That illustrates the precise point that we are making, and shows the assistance that the Opposition are attempting to give the Government in order that they can avoid what might be described as the parliamentary pugilism of driving legislation through to a fixed timetable.
The Minister is not in a position today to give us or the Law Society or anyone else that legislation. Why? It is difficult and complicated and technical to produce. Her draftsmen, who are hard pressed with all sorts of other legislation and have necessarily limited resources, are working to the deadline of 13 July. This morning’s events give us the opportunity to go back to the House and say that that date is too soon, and to take up the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on Second Reading that the consolidation measures should be considered when Parliament returns after the summer recess.
That suggestion, made by both Opposition parties, would give the draftsmen and the Minister’s departmental officials sufficient time to ensure that the legislation proceeded in good order. We concede that the Bill should be enacted by the end of the parliamentary Session. It has the necessary support to achieve that, but it is our duty as legislators to get it on the statute book in the best possible order, so that it is technically correct and competent.
The proposal is that the Committee should sit until 19 October—that would give us the possibility of eight more sittings—to consider the consolidation measures. That would allow an extra two and a half months during the summer. It strikes me that that would allow us sensibly to discharge our primary duty as legislators—we have a responsibility to the public to get it right.
For whatever reason, the Government will not take that opportunity, and insist that the Committee complete its scrutiny by 13 July. We have the opportunity to change that this morning, and I am at a loss to understand why we do not when we concede that we want this legislation on the statute book by the end of the Session.

Margaret Hodge: Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with the comments made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who has now joined our proceedings? He said:
“We broadly support the Bill. As it has nearly 1,000 clauses, it is pleasing that we have to disagree with only a handful of them.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 136.]
Does the hon. Member for Reigate disagree with that statement? If he does, perhaps he will say where.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the Minister give way?

Margaret Hodge: I cannot give way during an intervention.
If the hon. Member for Reigate does not disagree, does he accept that the time that we have given for consideration in Committee is sufficient? Does he further agree that when we discussed the purpose of going with the further consolidation of clauses into the Bill, it was at the request of Members from all parties during consideration in the House of Lords? Does he also agree that he appears to have changed his mind on that and that we are talking about pure consolidation?

Crispin Blunt: With the greatest respect, the Minister is confusing her roles as a parliamentary pugilist and a legislator. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton was saying on Second Reading that there are parts of the Bill with which we disagree in principle, although they represent a narrow element. However, we have a duty as legislators to get this Bill technically correct.
We might have no particular arguments over principle, but the Bill contains 925 clauses and that might grow to about 1,400. Some 181 amendments and 22 new clauses had been tabled for consideration by the beginning of the sitting, many of which are technical and based on advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who appears to want to intervene, is leading for the Conservatives on the substance of the Bill and is being advised by a large number of experts in the City whose profession we are dealing with. This is their opportunity to have arguments tested in public debate in a Committee of the House of Commons and to convince the Minister of the merits of those largely technical arguments and of the technical changes that will come about during our proceedings. Those proceedings are being curtailed, which reduces our opportunity to achieve that objective as legislators.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned that we agree with all but a handful of clauses. That is correct, but the Minister is being disingenuous in so far as that does not mean that we do not want to amend many of the clauses with which we agree. If she examines the selection list, which is sitting in front of her, she will see that we have tabled more than 100 amendments to the first 100 clauses.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I am yet to mention the number of Government amendments that have been tabled. We are doing precisely the job that the Government are doing: taking the opportunity of consideration in Committee to make changes to the Bill.
We are in receipt of advice, as the Minister and her colleagues in the Department are, and we are trying to improve the legislation. We have the opportunity to take longer to do that and to produce a better Bill, but the Government are not giving us the opportunity under this motion.

Margaret Hodge: Perhaps it would be helpful if I simply said that many Government amendments arise from issues that were debated in another place. In some cases, we gave undertakings to revisit the wording of particular clauses, which is what we are doing now, so we are meeting them. In others, the amendments are consequential and arise from issues that, again, were discussed in another place. Tidying up needs to be done throughout the Bill. That is from where most Government amendments originate. During the sitting, I shall do a calculation on those.
A large number of the amendments tabled for consideration have already been fully discussed in another place. They are technical, not of substance. A technical response was given by us in another place and does not need necessarily to be given again today, although I shall do so if that is required. If the Opposition are concerned that there is insufficient time for proper consideration of issues that are important to them in getting the legislation right, they ought to focus their amendments on those matters.

Crispin Blunt: Sitting underneath the assumptions of that argument, there is a rather dreadful arrogance about the role of the House of Commons and the duty of the Committee. It is not only the duty of the Government to come forward. Otherwise, why are we here?
Is no one here expected to do anything or to make any contribution to the legislative process? I regret to say that that is the way that the Government have treated the House of Commons. Programming is a classic example of that, curtailing as it does the ability of the House of Commons to produce better legislation. A careful selection has been made of hon. Members to sit on our side of the Committee, who are able to make a contribution because of their experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), due to her accountancy experience, will be invited to speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition from the Front Bench on those sections that relate to accountancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is an experienced company director who can speak with authority on those elements of the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) are solicitors with considerable experience in corporate law. We have put on the Committee people with the ability to make a contribution.
My hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon and for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) have been in receipt of a considerable amount of professional advice in their preparation for leading for Her Majesty’s Opposition on the Bill. That has been technical, with a team of more than 30 solicitors being brought in to advise them. Similarly sized teams were advising my noble Friends in the other place.
We are taking our duties seriously in trying to produce the best legislation so as to enable the wealth creation of the UK not to be prejudiced by us getting it wrong in the House of Commons. By tabling the programme motion and insisting on the timetable of ending consideration on 13 July, the Government are not enabling the House to do its job. That is why we will oppose the motion and invite the Government to think again to give them the time to propose consolidation measures in good order over the summer. The process can take place in October.

Shailesh Vara: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Illsley, and I welcome you to the Committee as Chairman.
I want to comment briefly on the Minister’s remarks. While I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton will be delighted that he is being quoted so freely in Committee, the Minister mentioned that he had said that we disagree with only a few clauses. However, she must appreciate that the Bill’s purpose is to minimise litigation and maximise efficacy for the practising of company law.
The Minister should appreciate that even one word, if not properly considered, could lead to litigation costing hundreds of millions of pounds. It is disingenuous to dismiss the argument by referring to our disagreement with only a handful of clauses when one word alone, if not properly thought through, could make life miserable and lucrative for lawyers, but not for business people.

Vera Baird: First, I deplore the use of the word “disingenuous”, which has been used twice about my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions. It ought not to be used. It has been used by the hon. Gentleman—I am grateful to him for giving way—and by the hon. Member for Huntingdon. It is not necessary to use language of that kind. It is not correct to use it either.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that in her view the Opposition are repeating, tediously and unnecessarily, technical amendments that have already been considered in the Lords and dealt with, and which met with huge agreement from the Government. If that is the case, what are the Opposition playing at?

Shailesh Vara: May I clarify the purpose? Many submissions have been made by outside bodies—the Law Society was referred to with reverence—and another place has considered the amendments in detail, but the Committee is responsible for the final decision.
There is an unhealthy presumption—if I may say so, Sir—that everything that has been submitted by everyone else is to be taken as read and that this is simply to be an exercise in submitting things.

Margaret Hodge: I have just made a calculation that will interest the Committee. Two thirds of the Opposition amendments tabled for part 2—I shall come back with calculations on the other parts—are identical or very similar to those that were discussed in huge detail in another place. The hon. Gentleman suggests that somehow all the stakeholders and experts whom we have consulted since 1998 in formulating the clauses have suddenly appeared on the scene in the past week when Opposition Members in the House of Commons started to take an interest in the Bill. That is simply wrong.
This has been an incredibly inclusive process, and there has been much consensus among all the experts who have an interest in the Bill. Are Opposition Members sincerely concerned with improving the Bill? We are sitting here at 10.21, after almost two thirds of this morning’s sitting, discussing process, not content. That does not appear to me to be the best way—

Shailesh Vara: Intervention or speech?

Margaret Hodge: No. This does not appear to me to be the best way to use parliamentary time, which is always precious.

Shailesh Vara: I am most grateful to the Minister for reminding us that so many outside bodies have contributed to the Bill. Indeed, it is because of that that the Government have regularly changed their mind, clause by clause. It is ironic that the Government, who feel that they have a right to change their mind, are not willing to give Her Majesty’s Opposition time properly to consider the outside views and make their contribution.
I conclude simply by saying that the Minister rightly commented that we have not been able to make progress, but that is no fault of ours. Perhaps if there were less arrogance on the Government side in assuming that there would be total co-operation from those on the Opposition Benches—that would be a dereliction of our duty—and perhaps if some Labour Members took the Bill seriously and took the trouble to attend the Committee, we might not be in the difficulty to which she refers.

Lorely Burt: May I register the disappointment of my party over the lack of change to the programme motion? The irony has not been lost on the Liberal Democrats that the nominal change to the deadline—one hour—happens to be exactly the time that we are spending on reorganising the programme motion. The Government say that they will be conciliatory, but it does not feel that way on this side of the Committee.

Margaret Hodge: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Shailesh Vara: Not for speeches.

Margaret Hodge: Certainly not for speeches. I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Lady’s intervention, because at the conciliatory original meeting about programming, she agreed with the Government on the motion that we put before the Committee.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for her elucidation, but the Bill has been more than seven years in the preparation. When an opportunity manifested itself to implement the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton to increase the time for discussion by four days, given seven years of preparation and the enormous amount of time that has already been taken up in another place, that did not seem to be too much to ask of the Government, who said that they would try to accommodate us.

Kitty Ussher: If that is the case, why did the hon. Lady vote for the Government’s programme motion?

Eric Illsley: Order. The Committee has no agreement on when it will sit next. Using my powers as Chairman and in accordance with precedent, I call the Committee to meet next at 10 o’clock on Tuesday 20 June.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till Tuesday 20 June at Ten o’clock.